Limits...
The Effects of the A Matter of Balance Program on Falls and Physical Risk of Falls, Tampa, Florida, 2013.

Chen TY, Edwards JD, Janke MC - Prev Chronic Dis (2015)

Bottom Line: No significant effects of the MOB program on recurrent falls or the number of falls reported were found.This study contributes to our understanding of the MOB program and its effectiveness in reducing falls and the physical risk of falling among older adults.The findings support extended use of this program to reduce falls and physical risk of falling among older adults.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Ageing Research and Education (CARE), Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, 8 College Rd, Singapore, 169857. Email: tuo-yu.chen@duke-nus.edu.sg.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: This study investigated the effects of the A Matter of Balance (MOB) program on falls and physical risk factors of falling among community-dwelling older adults living in Tampa, Florida, in 2013.

Methods: A total of 110 adults (52 MOB, 58 comparison) were enrolled in this prospective cohort study. Data on falls, physical risk of falling, and other known risk factors of falling were collected at baseline and at the end of the program. Multivariate analysis of covariance with repeated measures and logistic regressions were used to investigate the effects of this program.

Results: Participants in the MOB group were less likely to have had a fall and had significant improvements in their physical risk of falling compared with adults in the comparison group. No significant effects of the MOB program on recurrent falls or the number of falls reported were found.

Conclusion: This study contributes to our understanding of the MOB program and its effectiveness in reducing falls and the physical risk of falling among older adults. The findings support extended use of this program to reduce falls and physical risk of falling among older adults.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Comparisons of group × time interactions for the number of falls, the Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA), the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, and the Functional Reach (FR) test for participants in the A Matter of Balance (MOB) program and a comparison group, Tampa, Florida, 2013. All outcome variables were adjusted for covariates (age, race, chronic conditions, functional limitations, Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, geriatric fear of falling measure scores, and Modified Falls Efficacy Scale scores) at Time 1. For the number of falls and the TUG test, lower numbers are better. For the POMA and the FR test, higher numbers are better. For POMA, TUG test, and FR test, differences between the MOB and comparison group were significant, P < .001. VariableTime 1, MeanTime 2, MeanNumber of fallsMOB0.20Comparison0.60.6Performance-Oriented Mobility AssessmentMOB23.325.3Comparison23.622.5Timed Up and Go test (seconds)MOB13.511.4Comparison14.115.3Functional Reach test (inches)MOB9.611.1Comparison10.810.1
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4584474&req=5

Figure 2: Comparisons of group × time interactions for the number of falls, the Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA), the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, and the Functional Reach (FR) test for participants in the A Matter of Balance (MOB) program and a comparison group, Tampa, Florida, 2013. All outcome variables were adjusted for covariates (age, race, chronic conditions, functional limitations, Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, geriatric fear of falling measure scores, and Modified Falls Efficacy Scale scores) at Time 1. For the number of falls and the TUG test, lower numbers are better. For the POMA and the FR test, higher numbers are better. For POMA, TUG test, and FR test, differences between the MOB and comparison group were significant, P < .001. VariableTime 1, MeanTime 2, MeanNumber of fallsMOB0.20Comparison0.60.6Performance-Oriented Mobility AssessmentMOB23.325.3Comparison23.622.5Timed Up and Go test (seconds)MOB13.511.4Comparison14.115.3Functional Reach test (inches)MOB9.611.1Comparison10.810.1

Mentions: For the POMA, the univariate repeated-measures ANCOVA showed no main effect of group or time, but the group × time interaction was significant (F1,66 = 21.38; P < .001; η2 = 0.22) (Table 3). Fisher LSD tests revealed no significant differences in the POMA between the MOB and comparison groups at T1 (P = .62). However, the MOB group had significantly better performance than the comparison group at T2 (P = .002). In addition, from T1 to T2, the MOB group demonstrated a significant improvement on the POMA (P < .001), but the comparison group had significant declines (P = .01) (Figure 2).


The Effects of the A Matter of Balance Program on Falls and Physical Risk of Falls, Tampa, Florida, 2013.

Chen TY, Edwards JD, Janke MC - Prev Chronic Dis (2015)

Comparisons of group × time interactions for the number of falls, the Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA), the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, and the Functional Reach (FR) test for participants in the A Matter of Balance (MOB) program and a comparison group, Tampa, Florida, 2013. All outcome variables were adjusted for covariates (age, race, chronic conditions, functional limitations, Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, geriatric fear of falling measure scores, and Modified Falls Efficacy Scale scores) at Time 1. For the number of falls and the TUG test, lower numbers are better. For the POMA and the FR test, higher numbers are better. For POMA, TUG test, and FR test, differences between the MOB and comparison group were significant, P < .001. VariableTime 1, MeanTime 2, MeanNumber of fallsMOB0.20Comparison0.60.6Performance-Oriented Mobility AssessmentMOB23.325.3Comparison23.622.5Timed Up and Go test (seconds)MOB13.511.4Comparison14.115.3Functional Reach test (inches)MOB9.611.1Comparison10.810.1
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4584474&req=5

Figure 2: Comparisons of group × time interactions for the number of falls, the Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA), the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, and the Functional Reach (FR) test for participants in the A Matter of Balance (MOB) program and a comparison group, Tampa, Florida, 2013. All outcome variables were adjusted for covariates (age, race, chronic conditions, functional limitations, Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, geriatric fear of falling measure scores, and Modified Falls Efficacy Scale scores) at Time 1. For the number of falls and the TUG test, lower numbers are better. For the POMA and the FR test, higher numbers are better. For POMA, TUG test, and FR test, differences between the MOB and comparison group were significant, P < .001. VariableTime 1, MeanTime 2, MeanNumber of fallsMOB0.20Comparison0.60.6Performance-Oriented Mobility AssessmentMOB23.325.3Comparison23.622.5Timed Up and Go test (seconds)MOB13.511.4Comparison14.115.3Functional Reach test (inches)MOB9.611.1Comparison10.810.1
Mentions: For the POMA, the univariate repeated-measures ANCOVA showed no main effect of group or time, but the group × time interaction was significant (F1,66 = 21.38; P < .001; η2 = 0.22) (Table 3). Fisher LSD tests revealed no significant differences in the POMA between the MOB and comparison groups at T1 (P = .62). However, the MOB group had significantly better performance than the comparison group at T2 (P = .002). In addition, from T1 to T2, the MOB group demonstrated a significant improvement on the POMA (P < .001), but the comparison group had significant declines (P = .01) (Figure 2).

Bottom Line: No significant effects of the MOB program on recurrent falls or the number of falls reported were found.This study contributes to our understanding of the MOB program and its effectiveness in reducing falls and the physical risk of falling among older adults.The findings support extended use of this program to reduce falls and physical risk of falling among older adults.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Ageing Research and Education (CARE), Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, 8 College Rd, Singapore, 169857. Email: tuo-yu.chen@duke-nus.edu.sg.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: This study investigated the effects of the A Matter of Balance (MOB) program on falls and physical risk factors of falling among community-dwelling older adults living in Tampa, Florida, in 2013.

Methods: A total of 110 adults (52 MOB, 58 comparison) were enrolled in this prospective cohort study. Data on falls, physical risk of falling, and other known risk factors of falling were collected at baseline and at the end of the program. Multivariate analysis of covariance with repeated measures and logistic regressions were used to investigate the effects of this program.

Results: Participants in the MOB group were less likely to have had a fall and had significant improvements in their physical risk of falling compared with adults in the comparison group. No significant effects of the MOB program on recurrent falls or the number of falls reported were found.

Conclusion: This study contributes to our understanding of the MOB program and its effectiveness in reducing falls and the physical risk of falling among older adults. The findings support extended use of this program to reduce falls and physical risk of falling among older adults.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus